Prof G Markets

I really appreciated Ed’s interview with Gabriel Zucman! It was great to learn the detailed, strategic financial reasons behind California's Proposition 40. Finding objective information has been difficult, given the controversy and fear the measure is generating among both informed and uninformed here in CA. Wealth inequality is a massive problem that our country constantly misunderstands, even though it actively threatens our living standards, democracy, and freedoms. Using a platform centered on money and markets to break this down is a really meaningful way to wake more people up from our fantasies about wealth and power. Please keep asking guests like Gary Stevenson and Gabriel Zucman to help us see what is going on. Finally, Ed conducted the interview beautifully; he listened to Zucman without interruption and asked relevant questions that allowed the guest to make clear, compelling arguments while seamlessly moving the conversation along Great work, Ed!

What a calm, well-reasoned interview supporting the rationale for the Prop 40 California billionaire one time wealth tax. And what also calm rebuttal of all of the billionaires’ (and I assume The Economist’s) arguments. Loved hearing that Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, one of the billionaires has absolutely no problem with paying the tax, that it’s the price to pay to support a state with excellent infrastructure and educational institutions that all tech companies benefit from.

I just like the way they approach the process of the markets and the people they Interview who have significant insights. This is a great way for the average common non-Stock Broker non-economist to catch up on what’s going on in the world and how it influences finance and investing. They are also lighthearted with great levity. That makes the listening time very enjoyable.

Hi guys, I’ve been a longtime listener and fan of the podcast for many years. I’ve followed Scott Galloway since reading The Four and have always appreciated the thoughtful business, investing, and economic insights that made the show so valuable. Lately, however, it feels like the podcast has become increasingly political and, at times, more focused on criticizing certain individuals and political figures than on the business and economic analysis that originally drew me in. While I understand and appreciate healthy criticism—including of people like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, or members of the current administration—it sometimes feels as though the discussion has shifted from analyzing business decisions and policies to criticizing the individuals themselves. For example, while I may agree that some ideas, such as discussions around a potential SpaceX IPO, deserve scrutiny, the commentary can occasionally come across as personal rather than focused on the underlying business issues. I’m leaving this feedback because I genuinely enjoy the podcast and want to continue listening. My hope is that it can return more to its roots as a source of business, investing, and economic insight, and rely less on political commentary and opinion-driven discussions. Thanks for all the great content over the years.

I play many talk shows on my iPhone and Bluetooth to my car during drives. Most shows I keep on volume level 10 which is normal for radio and most podcasts. I have to turn this show up to 19 or 20 and when I get texts it makes my ears hurt because of how loud I have to play this show. Please level out your audio and record at a louder level or talk louder into your mics!

This show used to be appointment listening for me. Now it’s the same three topics on rotation: income inequality, Elon, Trump. The irony is they’ll spend a segment ripping mainstream media for being a mouthpiece for the powerful, then turn around and do the exact same thing from the other direction. It’s not analysis anymore, it’s a platform. It’s why I stopped consuming traditional mainstream media and unfortunately why I am now choosing to not listen to this podcast anymore. I often wonder if Scott has mentored Ed around needing his “one big thing” to build his brand, and while inequality is a real issue, I don’t need it shoehorned into every episode but Ed, job done, when I hear / see you now all I think is that’s the guy that complains about inequality. “The president and the markets are the same thing” is a convenient excuse to talk politics every day instead of, you know, the markets. There’s a lot more going on in the world and in the economy than those three things and so many other podcasts we can tune into to reinforce our political opinions. Please re-broaden the aperture. You don’t need to tie every story back to Trump, Musk, or inequality to make it land. And the episode titles have gotten so depressing too, it’s just clickbait and doom for the sake of it. We get it, Stephen Bartlett had success with these headlines but I feel like a podcast like this is better than that kind of garbage approach to attention grabbing. I used to click this podcast first thing every day. Now I check in once a week or two hoping it’s found its way back to being a sharp, unbiased read on markets.